The Government has this morning published its response to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee's (BISC) report, published in September, upon the effectiveness of self-regulation in the pub industry.

As predicted in our previous articles the Government has chosen not to adopt BISC's specific recommendations.

Report on pub companies published by the Business Innovation and Skills Committee on 20 September was not the news operators were hoping for.

Adding to the long running attack on the tied pub model, Greg Mulholland MP claimed (at the Tenanted Pub Summit) that the history of the sector is a problem and that the Beer Orders had been a “tragedy”. In particular the loss of the brewery tied model was a disaster with locals having no say on the future of the pubs in their community. 

In this article we reflect on what the Beer Orders were attempting to achieve and what the outcome really was.

Is Greg Mulholland right?

Those who attended the Tenanted Pubco Summit in June were treated to some strong views put forward by Greg Mulholland, MP and equally robust responses from Ted Tuppen.  The following commentary forms a preface to a series of articles around the tied pub model – in particular to examine the substance of the criticisms raised by Greg Mulholland and taking into account the legacy of the Beer Orders.

Guidance notes to the new block exemption includes specific reference to Listing Fees - or 'upfront access payments' as they are now known. There are some points to consider for drinks companies who are involved in this practice.

The Tenanted Pub Company Summit on 8 June 2010 turned into a spectator event with the audience treated to some sharply contrasting opinions from Ted Tuppin of Enterprise Inns plc and Greg Mulholland, MP. 

The provisions of the new EU Block Exemption and the Guidelines recently issued by the Commission contain a number of points which will be of interest to brewers and also to pub companies who rely on the leased tenanted model.  The impact arising from this has much wider implications than merely whether the tie remains.

Following considerable deliberation and further a further evidence session, the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee has published a further, eagerly awaited report on the trading tie.

Revisiting points arising from the long running case of Crehan v Inntrepreneur raises points relevant today in relation to Article 101 and the trading tie.

Arguably Council Regulation No 1/2003 (despite its unprepossessing title) is one of the single most important pieces of the jigsaw in the current debate relating to the enforceability and format of the trading tie. This articles discusses why.